On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@certik.cz> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Fernando Perez<fperez.net@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > not that I'm advocating any changes *now*, but this might be worth
> > looking into. I think nose and py.test share some ancestry, and it
> > seems that py.test is maturing nicely. I especially like the
> > 'funcargs' way of writing parametric tests without 'yield': I use
> > parametric tests *a lot*, but they are extremely hard to debug when
> > they break, because of how nose runs them.
> >
> > Just a note for the scratchpad :)
>> Py.test is way better imho, if nothing, just the nice error reporting.
> I will have a look if I can contribute the green [OK] results, I just
> can't live without it. Otherwise I think it's pretty good.
>
In what other ways is it better? The error reporting of nose is horrible
though, that is for sure.
Cheers,
Brian
>>> Ondrej
> _______________________________________________
> IPython-dev mailing list
>IPython-dev@scipy.org>http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/ipython-dev/attachments/20090804/df5cc1d7/attachment.html